Jaswant Kumar vs Jaswant Kumar

$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 12.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010540692025
+ RC.REV. 233/2025 & CM APPL. 47969/2025 (Stay)

JASWANT KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Datt Gahtori, Mr.
Shivam Sharma, Mr. Himanshu
Datt and Mr. Shivam Gautam,
Advocates.
versus


JASWANT KUMAR .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sumit Goswami, Advocate.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR

% JUDGEMENT (Oral)
1. The present Revision Petition, filed under Section 25-B(8) of
1
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 , seeks to assail the Order dated
2
09.06.2025 passed by the learned ARC-01, Central District, Tis
3
Hazari Courts, Delhi , in the Eviction Petition, being RC ARC No.
4
861/2023 , titled “Jaswant Kumar v. Jaswant Kumar” .
2. By way of the Impugned Order, the Application, filed by the
Petitioner, seeking Leave to Defend was dismissed and, consequently,
an Eviction Order was passed in favour of the Respondent in respect

1
DRC Act
2
Impugned Order
3
ARC
4
Eviction Petition
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 233/2025 Page 1 of 12

of One room situated on the ground floor of Property No. 5271,
5
Bharat Nagar, Shora Kothi, Paharganj, New Delhi-110055 .
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES:
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits
that the learned ARC failed to take into consideration certain essential
documents, sought to be brought on record by the Petitoner along with
his Written Submissions. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits
that the said documents included a registered General Power of
Attorney, a registered Will and an Agreement to Sell, which
substantiates that the Subject Premises belong to the Petitioner’s wife
and accordingly submits that no relationship of landlord and tenant
exists between the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, during the
proceedings before the learned ARC, an opportunity had although
been granted to place the aforesaid documents on record. However,
owing to the personal circumstances of the learned counsel
representing the Petitioner before the learned ARC, the documents
could not be filed within the time granted. It is contended that the
documents were, however, eventually tendered along with the
Petitioner’s Written Submissions and that the Petitioner ought not to
be prejudiced on account of the inadvertence of the counsel in not
filing the documents within the stipulated period.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the documents sought to
be relied upon are material to the defence raised in the Application
seeking Leave to Defend, particularly the plea disputing the

5
Subject Premises
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 233/2025 Page 2 of 12

relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is submitted
that the same raises triable issues. It is, therefore, contended that the
learned ARC adopted an unduly hyper-technical approach in refusing
to take the documents on record, thereby depriving the Petitioner of an
opportunity to establish his defence, which goes to the very root of the
matter, and thus warrants interference by this Court.
6. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
submits that the explanation, which is now sought to be raised on
behalf of the Petitioner, that the counsel representing the Petitioner
before the learned ARC could not file the said documents in time due
to his inadvertence and personal difficulty is neither substantiated nor
set out in the present Petition. It is submitted that there is no averment
in the present Petition with respect to the circumstances in which the
said documents could not be filed. Learned counsel for the
Respondent, therefore, submits that the said plea may not be
considered as it is merely a bald assertion, raised for the first time,
orally, before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the Respondent also submits that the said
documents, in any case, came to be filed not by way of any
Application seeking permission of the learned ARC to bring them on
record, but along with the Written Submissions. Learned counsel
submits that the learned ARC cannot be said to have adopted a hyper-
technical approach since Petitioner was granted reasonable time to
bring the said documents on record by way of an Application,
however, the Petitioner failed to do so. Learned counsel therefore
submits that the Petitioner cannot be permitted to now circumvent the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 233/2025 Page 3 of 12

legal repercussion of their own lackadaisical approach.
8. Learned counsel for the Respondent also submits that, in any
event, the documents sought to be brought on record, being a
registered General Power of Attorney, a registered Will and an
Agreement to Sell, all dated 21.03.2001, are all forged and fabricated
documents.
9. No other submissions were advanced by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respective parties.
ANALYSIS:
10. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and, with
their able assistance, perused the Impugned Order, the present Petition
and the other relevant material placed on record.
11. Before proceeding to examine the grounds of challenge urged
on behalf of the Petitioner, it would be apposite to advert to the scope
and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction vested in this Court under the
proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act.
12. The contours of the aforesaid jurisdiction are well settled. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance
6
Co. Ltd. , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar
7 8
Singh , and, more recently, in Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua , has
consistently held that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court
under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act is supervisory
and revisional in character and cannot be equated with the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction.

6
(1998) 8 SCC 119
7
(2014) 9 SCC 78
8
(2022) 6 SCC 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 233/2025 Page 4 of 12

13. The aforesaid principles have also been reiterated and relied
upon by Coordinate Benches of this Court, inter alia , in Pankaj
9
Pahwa v. Prem Wati & Ors. , and Sanjeev Hiranandani v. Sunny
10
Grover .
14. In Abid-Ul-Islam (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while
elucidating the legislative intendment underlying Section 25(B) of the
DRC Act, observed that the omission of an appellate remedy against
an Order passed by the learned Rent Controller is conscious and
deliberate. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court is,
therefore, one of superintendence over the decision-making process,
including the legality and propriety thereof, and does not permit the
High Court to substitute its own view for that of the learned Rent
Controller merely because another view on the material available on
record may be possible. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court read as under:
“ 23. The proviso to Section 25-B(8) gives the High Court exclusive
power of revision against an order of the learned Rent Controller,
being in the nature of superintendence over an inferior court on the
decision-making process, inclusive of procedural compliance.
Thus, the High Court is not expected to substitute and supplant its
views with that of the trial court by exercising the appellate
jurisdiction. Its role is to satisfy itself on the process adopted. The
scope of interference by the High Court is very restrictive and
except in cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the
record, which would only mean that in the absence of any
adjudication per se, the High Court should not venture to disturb
such a decision. There is no need for holding a roving inquiry in
such matters which would otherwise amount to converting the
power of superintendence into that of a regular first appeal, an act,
totally forbidden by the legislature.”

15. In Pankaj Pahwa (supra) , a Coordinate Bench of this Court,

9
2024:DHC:9322
10
2025:DHC:11285
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 233/2025 Page 5 of 12

upon considering the principles enunciated in Abid-Ul-Islam (supra) ,
reiterated that the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under the
proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act is limited in scope and that
this Court is not expected to substitute or supplant its view for that of
the learned ARC. The revisional scrutiny is confined to examining the
decision-making process and determining whether the Impugned
Order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record or an
absence of adjudication warranting interference.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the position which emerges
is that, while exercising jurisdiction under the proviso to Section
25B(8) of the DRC Act, this Court is neither required nor permitted to
undertake a fresh appreciation of the material on record with a view to
arrive at an independent conclusion on the merits of the dispute.
Interference would be warranted only where the Impugned Order
suffers from a jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material
irregularity or perversity, or where the conclusion arrived at by the
learned ARC is wholly unreasonable or founded upon an erroneous
premise of law. Equally, where a material plea has been left
unconsidered, or the decision-making process otherwise discloses an
error apparent on the face of the record, exercise of revisional
jurisdiction may be warranted.
17. It is within the aforesaid limited parameters of revisional
scrutiny that the grounds urged by the learned counsel on behalf of the
Petitioner against the Impugned Order are required to be examined.
18. The controversy which arises for consideration is whether the
learned ARC committed any illegality, warranting interference in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 233/2025 Page 6 of 12

exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, by declining to
take on record documents tendered along with the Written
Submissions, despite the earlier opportunity granted to the Petitioner
to file the same and in the absence of any Application seeking leave of
the Court for their belated production.
19. This Court takes note of the fact that the relevance of a
document to the defence sought to be raised is distinct from the
question whether the document has been duly brought on record in
accordance with the procedure governing the proceedings. The fact
that a party considers certain documents material to its case does not,
by itself, dispense with the requirement of placing them on record in
the manner prescribed by law, particularly where an opportunity to do
so has already been granted by the Court.
20. At this juncture, this Court deems it apposite to reproduce the
relevant paragraphs of the Impugned Judgement. The same read as
under:
“ 6) During the pendency of the petition, while the matter was listed
for arguments on leave to defend application, counsel for the
respondent on 25.02.2025 sought time to file additional documents
I.e registered Will and GPA dated 21.03.2001. Despite grant of
four weeks time, no application or any documents were filed on
behalf of the respondent.
7) Thereafter, on 06.05.2025, arguments on leave to defend
application were heard on behalf of the petitioner. However, none
appeared on behalf of the respondent to advance arguments.
Therefore, in the interest of justice, four weeks time to file written
submissions to the respondent. Respondent filed the written
submissions. However, alongwith the written submissions,
respondent also filed the additional documents i.e. GPA, Will,
agreement to sell, his aadhar card, election I card, electricity bill of
the premises in question.
8) However, no application was filed for seeking leave of the court
to bring on record additional documents. Simply, it was stated that
due to medical difficulty of his counsel, the said documents could
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 233/2025 Page 7 of 12

not filed earlier. It is trite to state that the ordinary rule of judiciary
procedure is that the statutory time period of 15 days for filing of
leave to defend application is inflexible and whatever has to be
stated in the leave to defend application with respect to the facts
and events, which have happened prior to 15 days period must be
stated in the leave to defend application itself and not by way of
subsequent affidavits or documents. Reliance in this regard is
placed upon the observation of the Apex Court in Prithipal Singh
Vs. Satpal Singh, (2010) 2 SCC 15. Further, the Hon'ble High
Court in the case of M/s Punjab Stainless Steel House and Anr. Vs.
Sangeeta Kedia 2015(1) RLR 447, has held that no event which
existed at the time of filing of leave to defend application can
added later on. Therefore, the additional documents filed with the
written submissions were not taken on record since the documents
sought to be filed were not subsequent events. Furthermore, no
pleadings had been made to show sufficient cause for non-filing of
documents with the leave to defend application itself.”

(Emphasis supplied)


21. A perusal of the Impugned Order reveals that the matter was
listed for arguments on the Application seeking Leave to Defend on
25.02.2025. On the said date, the learned ARC granted four weeks’
time to the Petitioner, on request, to file additional documents.
However, no Application to place the documents on record was filed
within the time so granted. The learned ARC further recorded that,
even on 06.05.2025, no Application had been filed for bringing the
additional documents on record.
22. The matter was thereafter taken up on 09.06.2025. On that date,
the Petitioner tendered Written Submissions along with the documents
in question, which included the registered General Power of Attorney,
the registered Will, the Agreement to Sell, an Aadhaar Card, an
Election Identity Card and an electricity bill. Significantly, the
documents were tendered without any accompanying Application or
pleadings seeking leave of the learned ARC to take them on record.
23. The learned ARC, while considering the request, also noticed
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 233/2025 Page 8 of 12

that the registered General Power of Attorney, the registered Will and
the Agreement to Sell were dated 21.03.2001. These documents,
therefore, already existed at the time when the Application seeking
Leave to Defend was filed. The remaining documents, as noticed by
the learned ARC, were also not shown to constitute subsequent events
which had arisen after the filing of the Application seeking Leave to
Defend.
24. In this factual backdrop, the explanation that the documents
could not be filed earlier owing to the personal circumstances of the
counsel appearing for the Petitioner does not furnish sufficient ground
to hold that the learned ARC acted illegally in declining to take them
on record. The Impugned Order records that the Petitioner had already
been afforded an opportunity to file additional documents and that the
said opportunity remained unavailed of. No formal Application
seeking leave to produce the documents, supported by a specific and
cogent explanation for the delay, was placed before the learned ARC
when the documents were tendered.

25. It is also material that the explanation now advanced does not
find adequate and specific articulation in the present Petition. While
the Petition contains a general grievance regarding the non-
consideration of the documents, it does not set out the circumstances
in which the same could not be filed on time or a clear and cogent
account which would demonstrate that the failure to comply with the
opportunity granted by the learned ARC was unavoidable. The mere
assertion that the omission occurred on account of the inadvertence or
personal circumstances of the counsel cannot, in the absence of further
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 233/2025 Page 9 of 12

particulars, be treated as sufficient to establish that the Impugned
Order suffers from any patent illegality.
26. This Court is conscious of the settled principle that a litigant
ought not ordinarily to suffer for a genuine and bona fide mistake on
the part of counsel. However, the application of such a principle
necessarily depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular
case. It cannot be invoked as an automatic or unconditional
entitlement to introduce documents at any stage of the proceedings,
irrespective of the opportunities already afforded, the explanation
furnished for the delay, or the procedure adopted for their production.
27. In the present case, the Petitioner was granted time specifically
for placing additional documents on record. Despite such opportunity,
the documents were not filed within the time granted, nor was any
Application seeking extension of time or leave to produce the
documents filed thereafter. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner did
not file the documents with the Application for leave to defend or the
Rejoinder or in the time granted by the Court to file documents. The
documents were ultimately tendered along with the Written
Submissions, without any formal request inviting the learned ARC to
consider the circumstances warranting their belated production. In
these circumstances, the learned ARC cannot be faulted for declining
to take the documents on record in the manner in which they were
tendered.
28. It is also apposite to refer to the provisions of Section 25(B) of
the Act which expressly states that any defence that is to be taken is
with the leave of the Court and by way of an affidavit. Admittedly, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 233/2025 Page 10 of 12

documents sought to be introduced along with the written
submissions, do not fulfill either condition.
29. It is further necessary to distinguish between the refusal to take
the documents on record and an adjudication upon their genuineness
or evidentiary value. The learned ARC declined to take the documents
on record on account of the manner and stage at which they were
produced. The question whether the documents are genuine, what
legal effect they may have, or whether they ultimately establish the
Petitioner’s claim to ownership does not arise for determination in the
present Revision Petition. No opinion is, therefore, expressed or any
observation made on those aspects.
30. The scope of revisional jurisdiction under the proviso to Section
25-B(8) of the Act is limited. This Court is not exercising appellate
jurisdiction and cannot interfere merely because another course might
have been adopted by the learned ARC. Interference would be
warranted where the Impugned Order discloses a material illegality,
irregularity or perversity in the decision-making process. In the
present case, the record demonstrates that the learned ARC granted an
opportunity to the Petitioner to produce the documents, noticed the
failure to avail of that opportunity, and declined to take the documents
on record when they were subsequently tendered without an
Application seeking leave of the Court.
31. The Impugned Order, therefore, cannot be said to suffer from
any jurisdictional error or material irregularity warranting interference
by this Court. The attempt to rely upon the documents at the revisional
stage does not, by itself, furnish a ground for setting aside the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 233/2025 Page 11 of 12

Impugned Order, particularly when the Petitioner has not
demonstrated any sufficient basis for holding that the learned ARC
acted illegally in refusing to take the documents on record.
DECISION:
32. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present Petition.
The Impugned Order does not warrant interference in exercise of the
revisional jurisdiction of this Court under the proviso to Section 25-
B(8) of the Act.
33. The present Petition, being sans merit, stands dismissed.
34. The present Petition, along with pending Application(s), if any,
stands disposed of in aforementioned terms.



HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
OCTOBER 12, 2026/
v/DJ


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 233/2025 Page 12 of 12